An interesting analysis from Nippapanca Blog (alias "The Bahiya Blog") The journal of an American Theravada Buddhist monk, sharing experiences and philosophical reflections after his return from 18 years in the forests of Burma.Four Western Theravadas

Several years ago a German monk sent me an article, "American Buddhists: Who Are They?" by Jan Nattier (which can be accessed by clicking here) , describing, from a sociological point of view, the main types of Buddhism in America. According to this article, Buddhism in the US can be conveniently divided into three categories: Ethnic Buddhism, Evangelical Buddhism, and Elite Buddhism.

Ethnic Buddhism is practiced almost exclusively by Asian immigrants, and to some degree by their descendants; it tends to be based on Asian cultural traditions, and there is negligible interaction with Westerners not born into those traditions.

Evangelical Buddhism, according to the author of the article, is essentially the sect, tradition, or organization of Soka Gakkai, an originally Japanese lay Buddhist society which I think is an offshoot of Nichiren, a Pure Land sect of Mahayana Buddhism. It actively recruits followers and seems to have a very secular orientation, but I personally know little about it, so I'll leave it at that.

Elite Buddhism refers mainly to Buddhist meditation traditions found in the West, such as IMS-style Vipassana, Zen, and some Tibetan Vajrayana traditions. It is called "Elite" by the author because its followers tend to have university educations and to be relatively affluent financially. In fact many meditation centers in the "Elite" tradition are prohibitively expensive for those who are not wealthy. This form of Western Buddhism, according to the author, tend to have few people from ethnic minorities participating, and mainly involve people of European descent. Also, the participants tend to be middle-aged "baby boomers," and recruit relatively few younger people to their ranks.

My observations of American Buddhism, however, cause me to think that there are at least four distinct categories of Theravada alone. I don't know nearly as much about other systems and their various forms in the West, so I'll restrict my analysis to American Theravada, which is probably similar to what is found in most other Western countries. The four varieties I will call Ethnic Theravada, Western Monastic Theravada, Elite Theravada, and the Goenka System. There is overlap between these four categories, so their edges are a bit blurry.

Ethnic Theravada is essentially the Theravadin fraction of the Ethnic Buddhism described in the aforementioned article. Most Asian temples in the West seem to serve more as cultural centers for a local immigrant population than as a place for serious monastic practice or even for missionary work. What missionary work is attempted usually is not particularly successful, as traditional Asian assumptions about Buddhism as a religion, heavily based on culturally conditioned unquestioning faith, are offered to Westerners, most of whom cannot assimilate much of it. So, these Asian Buddhist temples often have relatively little English spoken on the premises, and the supporters of such places often go there to speak their own native language, eat their own native food, and perform their own native ceremonies. Westerners who come often feel out of place, even though they are often warmly welcomed. So this form of Dhamma is unlikely to have much of an impact on Western culture, except for the effects of a few charismatic Asian monks and nuns who become popular with Westerners. If Theravada is to take root and thrive in the West, it is unlikely to occur from this direction—unless some extremely charismatic Asian monk or nun comes along and inspires it.

Western Monastic Theravada is an offshoot of Asian Monastic Theravada more than of Western Ethnic Theravada. Most senior Western monks, as far as I know, have spent years in a Theravada Buddhist country before living as monks in the West. Possibly the most obvious difference with Ethnic Theravada is that the monks at the temples are more Caucasian than Asian, and thus speak lots more English. The monks also tend to be much more strict in their monastic practices, for example following Vinaya more strictly and meditating more. And of course, the starting assumptions are somewhat different. However, there is overlap with Ethnic Theravada, as Western monastics tend to be strongly supported by immigrant Asian communities, possibly more so than by fellow Westerners of European descent. This is largely because earning merit by supporting the "Sangha" (in the traditional Eastern sense of the word) is fundamental to traditional Asian Buddhist culture, but not so in the West. Sometimes the monks of these two varieties of Theravada will meet together and interact, for example by performing formal ecclesiastical acts together; they may even mix together in the same monastery or temple. This form of Western Theravada does not consist entirely of monastics; it also includes lay participants in the system, including some rather conservative Westerners who can appreciate the fact that Dhamma has always been primarily based on a Sangha of renunciants, with the Buddha himself having been one of them.

One might naturally assume that this form of Theravada is the most viable form in the West, as Western monks and nuns are ordaining new Western monks and nuns. But its heavy reliance on Asian communities for support, and its general lack of regard from perhaps most Western people professing Theravada, cause this form also to seem rather limited in its potential to inspire Western culture with Dhamma. Also, of course, there is the question of how well a system designed for ancient India can be assimilated by the modern West. Charismatic Western monks and nuns may be less successful in facilitating this than charismatic Asian ones, largely because they're less exotic, and seen more as eccentrics: at least the Asian monastics are wrapped comfortably and respectably in their own cultural traditions.

Elite Theravada corresponds to the more or less Theravadin portion of the Elite Buddhism described above. It seems to be rather more popular with Westerners than the two previously mentioned forms of Dhamma practice. As far as I can tell, the two great capitals of this Buddhist genre in America, its Mecca and Medina, so to speak, are the Insight Meditation Society in Barre, Massachusetts, and Spirit Rock in Marin County, California. These two organizations are looked to as role models by countless Vipassana meditation societies in the US. Many places of this genre are rather luxurious, expensive, and markedly politically correct. The followers tend to be older, and leaning more toward Western materialistic hardheadedness than toward "woo woo." I know of one society that has candles and incense forbidden at the altars, because so many are worried about breathing toxic fumes, and at their main altar they have placed next to the Buddha image a statue of a female Mahayana Buddhist deity, for the politically correct sake of gender equality. This form of Theravada has sometimes been called "Dharma Lite." This is in large part because in order to be popular it must appeal to many; and in order to appeal to many it must be easy, convenient, comfortable, and non-threatening.

Although it is apparently more popular in the West than the other two mentioned thus far, I feel that it is not an ideal conduit of Dhamma to the West. The majority of the teachings in the Theravadin tradition are either ignored or studied intellectually, leaving a pale shadow of a dismembered fragment of a great tradition; and furthermore Theravadin Dhamma is mixed up in a very eclectic manner with various other traditions, including rather non-spiritual secular traditions. I don't consider eclecticism to be a bad thing in itself (which should be obvious to those of you who regularly read this blog), but mixing to the extent that genuine Theravada cannot be actually identified anymore is rather much. It should be borne in mind that Theravada Buddhism began as a systematic method for becoming enlightened in this very life, and renunciation (nekkhamma) is a fundamental aspect of it; so any version of Theravada that disdains radical renunciation and making Liberation one's very top priority in life is bound to represent only a partial and elementary aspect of it.

The fourth variety of Western Theravada is the Vipassana system founded by S. N. Goenka. It may be that the article mentioned above tacitly included this system with Elite Buddhism, but it is so divergent in many respects that I figure it deserves a class all to itself. It is the vehicle for a kind of satipaṭṭhāna, or mindfulness meditation, similar to the Mahasi tradition on which other Vipassana schools in the West have been based, plus its origins also are Burmese, but the similarities practically stop there. Goenka meditation retreats are free of charge, place great emphasis on determination and moral restraint, and involve some rather spartan self-discipline. I have never practiced the Goenka method, although I've read some of their publications and know several people who are or were followers of the system; and to a trained Theravadin it may seem overly simplistic in its approach to Dhamma. Yet it obviously appeals to many—so much so that retreat centers which charge no money have been established all over the world, and many followers of the method follow it with a kind of starry-eyed zeal which is relatively rare in Western lay Theravada. Long ago, when I was more sarcastic (and possibly more cynical) than nowadays, I used to call the Goenka people "the Jehovah's Witnesses of Buddhism."

I think a big reason for this is that the Goenka method is more difficult to practice than easygoing "Dharma Lite": for example there are no chairs, and two or three one-hour sits per day, in addition to other sits, in which the meditator is advised not to move, even if in a fair amount of discomfort. (The Mahasi method on which most Vipassana methods in the West are at least partly based used to emphasize this kind of "heroic effort" also, using slogans like "Pain is the friend of the meditator," and "Pain is the key that unlocks the door to Nibbana," and exhorting practitioners to remain motionless for the full hour even though the pain might be so intense that they fear they may die; but as comfort-requiring Westerners adopted the method more and more, this kind of teaching was heard less and less, even in Burma.) Anyway, because it is more difficult, completing a ten-day retreat or "course" is a real accomplishment, giving the practitioner not only the benefits of more strenuous practice, but a feeling of deep satisfaction from successfully doing something difficult. And doing what is difficult makes us stronger.

And so, although I'm a follower of the "second Theravada" (pretty much!), and personally don't follow the Goenka method, it strikes me as probably the most viable and successful form of Theravadin Dhamma that I've seen in the West so far—it seems to be getting more of the spirit of Dhamma to more people. It involves considerable practice, self-restraint, and even a moderate amount of renunciation. It's rather simplistic perhaps, but easily understood and relatively undiluted by other systems (although some feel that Goenka's own views on Dhamma are somewhat unorthodox and misleading). Plus it apparently changes people's lives profoundly, and for the better.

What I've been doing since my return to America is looking for some way for Dhamma to thrive, or at least survive without fatal mutations, in the West in such a way that it can have the most positive effect on an increasingly dysfunctional secular culture. Or maybe it would be fairer to say that I'm looking for a way for me to thrive while practicing it here. I'm still looking.

Sounds about right to me, from my rather isolated position in the real world and from my experience on DW.What it doesn't consider, of course, is the Mahayana. From here, it looks like the Chinese have done great things for Buddhism in the West by forcing the Tibetan diaspora and that what most Westerners think of when they think of Buddhism is actually Vajrayana, with the high profile of HHDL responsible for a large part of that perception.I don't know how well that matches percentages of Western adherents to Buddhism overall but I think Vajrayana centres must be almost equal to Theravada centres - which is way out of proportion to the numbers of adherents in traditionally Buddhist countries.

Interesting observations, especially the conclusions about the Goenka programme...

My observations of American Buddhism, however, cause me to think that there are at least four distinct categories of Theravada alone. I don't know nearly as much about other systems and their various forms in the West, so I'll restrict my analysis to American Theravada, which is probably similar to what is found in most other Western countries. The four varieties I will call Ethnic Theravada, Western Monastic Theravada, Elite Theravada, and the Goenka System. There is overlap between these four categories, so their edges are a bit blurry.

The difference I observe in New Zealand is that the "Elite" category (IMS, Spirit Rock, etc) isn't so "Elite" here, at least in terms of expense. The local Insight group runs retreats in relatively cheap camp environments.

As someone who is based in an "ethnic" Wat, I agree with the observations that there are serious barriers to participation by "locals". In my experience, the major problem is communication, certainly not lack of expertise in Dhamma (relative to the other three categories), or overly rigid attitudes. So there are definitely great opportunities for Dhamma propagation lurking in such places...

Yes, I believe the assessment to be a wee bit simplistic.From my humble point of view.

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

And so, although I'm a follower of the "second Theravada" (pretty much!), and personally don't follow the Goenka method, it strikes me as probably the most viable and successful form of Theravadin Dhamma that I've seen in the West so far

Hi Clarence To address the first point you can read here http://www.dhamma.org/en/goenka.shtml: "The technique which S. N.Goenka teaches represents a tradition that is traced back to the Buddha. The Buddha never taught a sectarian religion; he taught Dhamma - the way to liberation - which is universal. In the same tradition, Mr. Goenka's approach is totally non-sectarian. For this reason, his teaching has a profound appeal to people of all backgrounds, of every religion and no religion, and from every part of the world.". For me Theravada is a living tradition which is inextricably linked with monasticism.

Interesting essay. Dhamma propagation is one of my favorite subjects and attempted pursuits.

I have also noticed the lack of support from Western-born / European ancestry members toward the monks at the Western Theravada monasteries. The daily lunch dana requirements are primarily met from the immigrant-Asian members. However, I still find the Western Monastic Theravada to be the most appealing, with perhaps some overlap with the other forms. Although most of the monks are of European ancestry, you do find monks from other ethnic backgrounds too. And the standard of practice for meditation and Vinaya is high, so I think they come very close to they way Dhamma and Vinaya were practiced at the time of the Buddha. Perhaps and hopefully through the passage of time, the Westerners will develop more of a community and have more community functions and then the 'culture' if you will might adapt to be more responsive to the requisite needs of monks and nuns.

During the time of the Buddha, the laymen Citta and Anathapindika among others, taught the Dhamma. So there could be some overlap with "Elite Theravada" by utilizing the skills of some very good lay teachers (for example, Kornfield, Goldstein, Salzberg) at the Western Monastic centers (without the exorbitant fees and thereby dropping the "elite" stigma).

And then the Western Theravada center could also host some Goenka-style retreats and keep close friendship with the ethnic temples, thereby being an eclectic form of all the "Four Theravadas" mentioned in the essay but being primarily the Western Monastic Theravada.

I think the Ajahn Chah monasteries in the West are close to this style that I personally prefer and also perhaps even more so, the bhikkhuni monasteries. At the bhikkhui monasteries I have visited, there is a mix of ethnicities so it does not tend to be a cultural center. The nuns keep a very high standard of Vinaya and meditation practice and maintain close connections to other temples in their areas. They frequently lead women's retreats and get a good mix of Buddhist women from all backgrounds and they also have community programs for the whole family.

This would be indeed healthy and wonderful, if it developed in this direction. We do in fact have many newcomers in the Western monasteries who have been introduced through the Goenka centers and did courses there. Sometimes there is a bit of a problem with them because they assume that monastic life is supposed to be like a continuous retreat without any disturbance, which of course is far from the truth. Some of them are also dissatisfied with aspects of the Goenka method especially when compared to the actual Sutta teachings themselves. But generally they are well motivated and also ready to serve, which is part of the monastic training.

Ben wrote:Yes, I believe the assessment to be a wee bit simplistic.From my humble point of view.

I live very close to Spirit Rock and found the assessment informative. Simplistic? How detailed does he have to get in a blog post? It's so ironic that you post one sentence and call someone else simplistic. It was for effect? As opposed to just saying simply what of the four assessments you think are simplistic ?

Insight Meditation Society in Barre, Massachusetts, and Spirit Rock in Marin County, California. These two organizations are looked to as role models by countless Vipassana meditation societies in the US. Many places of this genre are rather luxurious, expensive, and markedly politically correct. The followers tend to be older, and leaning more toward Western materialistic hardheadedness than toward "woo woo." I know of one society that has candles and incense forbidden at the altars, because so many are worried about breathing toxic fumes, and at their main altar they have placed next to the Buddha image a statue of a female Mahayana Buddhist deity, for the politically correct sake of gender equality. This form of Theravada has sometimes been called "Dharma Lite." This is in large part because in order to be popular it must appeal to many; and in order to appeal to many it must be easy, convenient, comfortable, and non-threatening.

This made me

While I've not been to either facility and can't if it's accurate in that regard, I've been to other related centers that fit this exact description.

"Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing.Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom." Dhammapada: Pupphavaggahttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/